Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 167 F.3d 1124 - Carr v. O'Leary

Carr v. O'Leary’s Empirical Analysis

167 F.3d 1124 · 1999

Citation profile

76
cited by 76 later decisions
June 2025
most recently cited

40 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably United States v. Cunningham (2005), DeWalt v. Carter (2000)

40 federal appellate · 2 district ·

3601999200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Foman v. Davis · Heck v. Humphrey · Bousley v. United States · Yakus v. United States · Spencer v. Kemna

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Furthermore, we, like the Second Circuit in Jenkins , are hesitant to apply the Heck rule in such a way as would contravene the pronouncement of five sitting Justices. The concurring and dissenting opinions in Spencer reveal that five Justices now hold the view that a § 1983 action must be available to challenge constitutional wrongs where federal habeas is not available.... Individuals without recourse to the habeas statute because they are not in custody (people merely fined or whose sentences have been fully served, for example) fit within § 1983’s broad reach.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “a discretionary ruling ... cannot be upheld when there is no indication that the judge exercised discretion”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.